22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T464,MEMORANDUM Kevin Lynn Fernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed using a pseudonym because there were no special or unusual circumstances that justified protection of Fernandez’s identity. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012-14 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting a request for a pseudonym based on the nature of the prisoner’s conviction as a sex offender “because this concern is equally present for all similarly situated sex offenders who face prison sentences,” and questioning the value of pseudonymity where the prisoner’s conviction was a matter of public rec ord and many of the documents were not submitted under seal). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T491,

MEMORANDUM

Kevin Lynn Fernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed using a pseudonym because there were no special or unusual circumstances that justified protection of Fernandez’s identity. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012-14 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting a request for a pseudonym based on the nature of the prisoner’s conviction as a sex offender “because this concern is equally present for all similarly situated sex offenders who face prison sentences,” and questioning the value of pseudonymity where the prisoner’s conviction was a matter of public rec ord and many of the documents were not submitted under seal).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.